Message-ID: <01b0a528-bec0-41d7-80f6-8afe213bd56b@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 14:46:09 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: kalyazin@...zon.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, corbet@....net,
 kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: jthoughton@...gle.com, brijesh.singh@....com, michael.roth@....com,
 graf@...zon.de, jgowans@...zon.com, roypat@...zon.co.uk, derekmn@...zon.com,
 nsaenz@...zon.es, xmarcalx@...zon.com,
 Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] KVM: ioctl for populating guest_memfd

On 20.11.24 13:09, Nikita Kalyazin wrote:
> On 24/10/2024 10:54, Nikita Kalyazin wrote:
>> [2] proposes an alternative to
>> UserfaultFD for intercepting stage-2 faults, while this series
>> conceptually compliments it with the ability to populate guest memory
>> backed by guest_memfd for `KVM_X86_SW_PROTECTED_VM` VMs.
> 
> +David
> +Sean
> +mm

Hi!

> 
> While measuring memory population performance of guest_memfd using this
> series, I noticed that guest_memfd population takes longer than my
> baseline, which is filling anonymous private memory via UFFDIO_COPY.
> 
> I am using x86_64 for my measurements and 3 GiB memory region:
>    - anon/private UFFDIO_COPY:  940 ms
>    - guest_memfd:              1371 ms (+46%)
> 
> It turns out that the effect is observable not only for guest_memfd, but
> also for any type of shared memory, eg memfd or anonymous memory mapped
> as shared.
 > Below are measurements of a plain mmap(MAP_POPULATE) operation:>
> mmap(NULL, 3ll * (1 << 30), PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE |
> MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_POPULATE, -1, 0);
>    vs
> mmap(NULL, 3ll * (1 << 30), PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED |
> MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_POPULATE, -1, 0);
> 
> Results:
>    - MAP_PRIVATE: 968 ms
>    - MAP_SHARED: 1646 ms

At least here it is expected to some degree: as soon as the page cache 
is involved map/unmap gets slower, because we are effectively 
maintaining two datastructures (page tables + page cache) instead of 
only a single one (page cache)

Can you make sure that THP/large folios don't interfere in your 
experiments (e.g., madvise(MADV_NOHUGEPAGE))?

> 
> I am seeing this effect on a range of kernels. The oldest I used was
> 5.10, the newest is the current kvm-next (for-linus-2590-gd96c77bd4eeb).
> 
> When profiling with perf, I observe the following hottest operations
> (kvm-next). Attaching full distributions at the end of the email.
> 
> MAP_PRIVATE:
> - 19.72% clear_page_erms, rep stos %al,%es:(%rdi)
> 
> MAP_SHARED:
> - 43.94% shmem_get_folio_gfp, lock orb $0x8,(%rdi), which is atomic
> setting of the PG_uptodate bit
> - 10.98% clear_page_erms, rep stos %al,%es:(%rdi)

Interesting.
> 
> Note that MAP_PRIVATE/do_anonymous_page calls __folio_mark_uptodate that
> sets the PG_uptodate bit regularly.
> , while MAP_SHARED/shmem_get_folio_gfp calls folio_mark_uptodate that
> sets the PG_uptodate bit atomically.
> 
> While this logic is intuitive, its performance effect is more
> significant that I would expect.

Yes. How much of the performance difference would remain if you hack out 
the atomic op just to play with it? I suspect there will still be some 
difference.

> 
> The questions are:
>    - Is this a well-known behaviour?
>    - Is there a way to mitigate that, ie make shared memory (including
> guest_memfd) population faster/comparable to private memory?

Likely. But your experiment measures above something different than what 
guest_memfd vs. anon does: guest_memfd doesn't update page tables, so I 
would assume guest_memfd will be faster than MAP_POPULATE.

How do you end up allocating memory for guest_memfd? Using simple 
fallocate()?

Note that we might improve allocation times with guest_memfd when 
allocating larger folios.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists